David Cairns: No. the hon. Gentleman is not right about that, but he is right to pay tribute to David Marshall. He was an outstanding Member of Parliament for 29 years, a very assiduous attender of Scottish questions and one who never feared to hold Governments to account, whatever their political persuasion.
	The Commonwealth games are a magnificent opportunity for Glasgow, not just for the fact that people from all over the world will come to visit or for the sporting success and legacy but for the massive investment that there will be in the city. We anticipate that up to 5,000 apprenticeship places—2,000 in the construction industry alone—will be offered as a result of the work going on between Glasgow city council and the Department for Work and Pensions. I think that the games will be a success, however one looks at them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Olympics, and I encourage all businesses, Scottish-based or otherwise, to bid for the contracts. It is important to look at the value of some of the contracts, and not just their overall number. Scottish companies have won parts of the Olympic business that are of considerable value.

David Cairns: The order to which my hon. Friend refers is extremely important, for his constituency in Ayrshire and for the whole economy of the west of Scotland. Saving his blushes, I know that he was instrumental in campaigning very hard behind the scenes for that.
	My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. There is already pressure on Scotland's labour market thanks to the historic numbers of people in employment, but we are preparing for the Commonwealth games and trying to get new apprenticeships in the construction industry. At the same time, the two new aircraft carriers that are due to be constructed in Glasgow mean that there is massive investment in the city, and it is important that we get people with the rights skills and training to take advantage of it.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman quotes one review of the issue; let me quote another. The Institute for Fiscal Studies—not an institute that is normally very friendly to the Government—says:
	"it is far from clear that there will be a net gain to the public finances from the higher oil price."
	As we know, if people spend more money on petrol and the car, they are spending less money elsewhere. If high oil prices mean that businesses are having to contract, that means less tax coming from the economy. Overall, I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that there is a from high oil prices. He simply cannot prove that point.

Norman Baker: We know that a third runway at Heathrow will be very damaging for the local environment and drive an aeroplane through the Government's carbon reduction targets. Has the Leader of the House seen the comments of Bob Ayling, the former chief executive of British Airways, who said:
	"A third runway at Heathrow is against Britain's economic interests...It is likely...to prove a costly mistake"?
	When are the Government going to put the public interest first and stop behaving like a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAA?

Harriet Harman: I shall get the Chancellor to write to the hon. Gentleman with those specific figures. One of the things that is very important for first-time buyers, in addition to the points that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), is that we need to have more house building in this country. That is why we have brought forward our plans for eco-towns. I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and other hon. Members who are concerned about the opportunities for first-time buyers will back up those plans.

Hazel Blears: We will revise the so-called Widdicombe rules, which restrict council officers from political activity, and allow more council officers to engage in political activity if they choose to do so. We will also consult on extending the right to time off for public duties to a broader range of public service roles.
	The Government support the vital democratic contribution of the voluntary sector. We will launch a £70 million communitybuilders scheme to support community organisations. We will also remove some of the barriers preventing faith-based organisations from supplying goods and services to local authorities. There will be a £7.5 million empowerment fund for national third sector organisations to establish innovative schemes, particularly for young people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to gain vital community leadership skills and become involved in planning and social enterprise. My Department's social enterprise unit will be launched in the autumn.
	Petitions have been a well-understood part of our public life for centuries. They represent a recognised method of aggregating views into a single collective voice. They are so simple that even young people and children can take part. Many local authorities handle petitions very well. However, we want all of them to do so at the level of the best, so we will place a duty on councils to respond to all petitions, and if a petition has the support of more than 5 per cent. of the local population there will have to be a debate in full council.
	Petitions will help local people to direct their council to clear away abandoned cars, build a new road crossing, introduce traffic calming measures or deal with an empty property. Councils will also act as community advocates, for example for petitions relating to NHS primary care trusts.
	I am convinced that there is no conflict between representative and participatory forms of democracy. They are mutually reinforcing, and the best councillors are the ones who are in touch with the views of their community. We want to build on the success of participatory budgeting schemes, which allow local people to have a real say over how local investment is made, including in youth, community safety and health budgets.
	We hear many negative things about young people today, and we are told that they have rejected mainstream politics. We need to do far more to harness their energy and their desire for social action and involvement. We will open up Government to young people and support a range of innovative programmes to help them become effective leaders of tomorrow.
	We all understand that not everyone wants to become an active citizen, but none the less there are millions of people in Britain who want to do more for their communities but lack the platform on which to stand. We will transfer more assets—such as community centres, street markets, swimming pools, parks and land—to local community ownership. We want to see more local co-ops and mutually-owned groups running local services. A new asset transfer unit will be established to speed this up. We also want to see more social businesses, and we will encourage councils to ensure that social enterprises are able to compete fairly for contracts.
	This White Paper takes us further on our democratic journey, but this is not the last word. We are changing here the terms of the debate. We will continue to strive for greater reform, devolution and accountability, because that is what people increasingly want and demand, and because it is the right thing to do. I commend this White Paper to the House.

Hazel Blears: I welcome the damascene conversion of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to having more city mayors. I can only presume that he has been under intense pressure from the leader of his party, who has been a champion of having more mayors. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has seen the light and decided that that form of leadership is the right approach.
	I also welcome his welcome for some of the powers for the voluntary sector, but it is this Government who are providing resources, back-up and support to the sector in partnership, instead of seeking to push services on to the voluntary sector as an abdication of local and central Government responsibility to provide services for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of police and crime. My White Paper contains a reference to an increased role for mayors in addressing crime and community safety. He will see much more detail in the police Green Paper, which is likely to be published shortly. We mean to ensure that local people have much more say on crime, and on health, in which they also have a significant interest.
	The hon. Gentleman will also see that the White Paper contains models for increasing primary care trust accountability. Those are very interesting and will be welcomed by local people who are keen to see commissioning in the health service take place at local level, so that they can influence it more.
	The hon. Gentleman also welcomed the development of social enterprise and asset transfer. Again, he talks the talk, but it is this Government who are turning that into reality, with massive programmes in the health sector to encourage social enterprise. GP practices are increasingly adopting a social enterprise model. A GP practice close to me now provides appointments first thing in the morning at 7.15, and late night appointments at 8.30. That is what the public want to see, and that is why we have to be more adventurous in the models that we adopt.
	The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of councillors being able to vote remotely. This is a consultation, but all our parties desperately need better, higher-quality people to come forward as candidates. People often have responsibilities to manage in their homes and family lives. If someone represents a rural area, it often takes them a tremendous amount of time to get to meetings. We have to be braver. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to have a little courage, a bit of imagination and a little creativity. His recipe is simply for more of the same, but the turnout in the last set of local elections was 35 per cent. Even in the London mayoral election it was only 45 per cent. Unless we are prepared to have courage and convictions and to do things differently, we will see this disaffection and disengagement from local politics continue, to the detriment of all our political parties and of democracy in this country.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Widdicombe changes. I do not think that it is fair for a highways engineer who does not advise the council and has no role on policy, but earns £33,000 a year, to be barred from any democratic political activity because of that. It sends out the wrong message. It is right to correct that situation, which was caused by the previous Government.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that we had stripped powers away from local government, and that if we gave it more powers, that would be the answer.  [ Interruption. ] Let me just say this to the hon. Gentleman: he seems to have had a bout of amnesia. In the past 12 months, we have reduced the number of national targets from 1,200 to fewer than 200. We have negotiated local area agreements and there are £5 billion-worth of un-ring-fenced funds. We have given local authorities the right, through the duty to co-operate, to draw together health, police, local councils and Jobcentre Plus, and we have given them excellent new tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is one area where local councils can make a difference, and that is where they need to put their efforts.

David Curry: The statement resembles an extremely cheap cup of cappuccino, with a huge amount of froth but no detectable coffee—I suppose that the next proposal will give people air miles for voting. Leaving that aside, will the Secretary of State assert very clearly that local democracy depends on people being representative? It does not mater how low down an organisation is, or how small the assets that it is managing, the line of accountability to representative bodies must be very clear. Will she assert that principle, as waste is waste, whether it involves £20 billion, which is what the Government specialise in, or tuppence-ha'penny?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is on the enthusiastic wing of his party when it comes to local democracy, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) necessarily agrees with all his proposals. As I said earlier on police accountability, the White Paper contains a commitment to establishing a directly elected element in the police system. The details will be spelled out in the police Green Paper. Where there is a mayor, they will assume the role of the directly elected person in the police system, which is a significant step forward towards greater transparency and accountability.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be more local influence on local government finance, and that debate will no doubt run and run. We recently signed a concordat with the Local Government Association that for the first time sets out the rights and responsibilities of central Government and local government. Again, that is a significant step forward. As I said earlier, in the past 12 months there has been a significant move towards giving people at the local level more space to do what they really want and freeing up local councils to respond accordingly.
	As for local initiatives and referendums, local people can petition for participatory budgeting. That is a big step forward in the devolution of power, and the White Paper contains details about the community justice initiatives that we want to pursue. Under them, local people will get the right to vote on high-visibility community punishments. That approach is being been piloted in Liverpool and Salford, and it is proving a great success.

Lynda Waltho: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and the White Paper. The ideas on empowerment and holding councillors and officers to account will be welcomed in Stourbridge, where Tory-controlled Dudley council has closed leisure centres, schools and libraries with no consultation. This week, the council has cut services to the elderly and doubled the price of meals on wheels, also without consultation. Will she undertake to come to my constituency to see the damage done by the Tory-controlled council and show Dudley how to clean up its act?

Andrew Gwynne: Is it not the case that properly engaging with local communities on issues that matter empowers local councillors and councils? I commend to the Secretary of State the excellent and fully resourced scrutiny function at Tameside metropolitan borough council and its district assemblies, where it has already devolved decision making, staff and budgets to community level. That is in stark contrast with Stockport, where the authorities have done everything to obstruct the Friends of Reddish Baths, which wants to reopen under community management that much loved and well cherished community facility.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has extensive experience of local government, as do a number of people in the House, including myself. I think that I am one of the relatively few members of the Cabinet who have been local authority councillors. Indeed, I have also been a local authority officer, so I am a real champion of local government. He made a point about ensuring that there are no new burdens, which is the phrase that we use, and I certainly give him an undertaking that across Government we will make absolutely sure that when we ask local government to do new things, local government has the finance to do them.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Gregory Campbell: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the recent increases in food and fuel costs combined with the abolition of the 10 pence tax band, and the effect these are having on the most disadvantaged in society; and calls for a review of all mechanisms, including the use of extra revenue raised through increased crude oil prices, winter fuel payments and family tax credits, to assist those on lower and medium incomes.
	Across the United Kingdom there is evidence of an economic downturn, which has many aspects to it. In fact, today's national newspaper front page headlines give a stark indication of what we face in the coming months, which has all the hallmarks of the nation's worse downturn in 30 years. While all parts of the nation and all sectors of society are suffering, the region whose suffering is among the worst is Northern Ireland. The price of oil in all parts of the UK is hovering near $150 a barrel, which means that diesel in Northern Ireland filling stations—I am sure that this is the case elsewhere in the UK—has increased by 35 per cent. since this time last year, and unleaded petrol by 22 per cent. Regions such as Northern Ireland, parts of Scotland and the south-west of England suffer most, because food and goods have to be transported to the consumer.
	We have seen electricity price rises of the order of 20 per cent. in 12 months; natural gas prices have risen by 28 per cent., and home heating oil in Northern Ireland has risen by 100 per cent. in a 12-month period. All that provides a clear indication that consumers and vulnerable groups, to whom I will turn in a moment, are suffering horrendously. Today, I read that home repossessions are set to rise throughout the United Kingdom by 60 per cent. by the end of the year—not in 12 months' time, but within the next six months. The credit crunch, coupled with the other issues that I have mentioned, means that people are suffering across the UK. Indeed, every constituency MP hears on a daily basis of the genuine hardships faced by people who find it difficult to meet mortgage costs. The increase in repossessions in the next six months indicate how difficult it is for people to meet those increasing mortgage costs.
	Given that vulnerable groups are being hit the hardest, people are turning to the Government for solutions. Governments here and elsewhere may protest that the increases are, for the most part, outside their control—and of course many of them are—but helping the lower-paid and vulnerable senior citizens is certainly what the Government must do, and they must do so quickly.
	I read with interest in the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister the gestures that the Government intend to make. There will be increases in the winter fuel payment and in tax credits and allowances. The Government are moving in the correct direction, but those gestures are just that—gestures—and they are not sufficient, because elderly people have found that even a £50 or £100 increase in the winter fuel payment does not extend to their covering the purchase of one tankful of home heating oil to get them through half of the coldest part of the winter. Only four years ago, the winter fuel allowance allowed a senior citizen to acquire sufficient heating oil to get them through the entire winter, so the scale of the problem is increasing, and the measures that are intended to deal with the problem have fallen significantly short.

Jane Kennedy: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate an issue as important as the cost of living. I appreciate that the terms of the motion and Government's amendment are set widely. It is a pleasure to respond to a debate tabled by the Democratic Unionist party and I congratulate it on having selected this subject.
	As the House will know, this debate comes at a time when families across the country face rising world food and fuel prices as well as the effects of the ongoing global credit squeeze. I would not employ the language used by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), but I acknowledge the problems that families face. Those challenges face not only us here in Britain or only those in Northern Ireland, but economies across the world. Oil prices have hit record highs in recent weeks and are nearly twice as high as they were a year ago. That has pushed up the price of petrol, gas and electricity. I know that Northern Ireland Electricity increased its prices by 14 per cent. at the start of the month.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that there are factors in Northern Ireland that mean that families are affected in different ways by the challenges that we face. Broadly, on most issues, Northern Ireland faces the same challenges as the rest of the UK, but other factors overlay the situation, as the hon. Gentleman knows far better than I do as a representative of an English constituency.
	The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will know how important to Northern Ireland's economy is the ongoing political stability that we need to maintain. Clearly, the ability to bring about a devolved Government to Northern Ireland has had a major impact on the confidence of business. I will turn in a moment to the successful conference that the Assembly organised, which is a tribute to the work that is going on. The fact that companies from around the world are now investing with confidence in Northern Ireland is very much to do with the ongoing political stability that the hon. Gentleman and others have worked so hard to achieve. We all need to work hard to sustain, foster and encourage that for the sake of the ongoing stability of the economy and the extra jobs that will be generated by inward investment. I am setting the context, not seeking in any way to minimise the points that he and others will make about specific problems that he and his constituents are experiencing.
	Northern Ireland has, like the rest of the UK, enjoyed sustained economic growth for a number of years. Exports have risen by 70 per cent. over the past decade, and its economy has a promising future as it benefits from a successful peace process. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), both of whom are in their seats, on the recent US investment conference, which attracted twice as many potential investors as were originally expected. That shows the potential that there is in Northern Ireland, particularly when put alongside companies such as Fujitsu, Bloomberg and Bombardier announcing investments there.
	I am confident that Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will weather the storm that we are experiencing internationally. The Government are taking action to respond by supporting our economy, our families and our businesses. This year, we are using the flexibility that our fiscal rules give us to increase borrowing to support the economy at a time when it needs it. That allowed us to delay the increase in fuel duty that was due in April. The hon. Member for East Londonderry spoke about other ways in which we might support families. His motion indicates that he believes that a windfall from higher oil prices could be used for that purpose, as do other political parties that have made great play of this. If he will allow me to say so respectfully, this shows how Opposition politics fail to appreciate Government responsibilities. Let me draw his attention to the article IV inspection by the International Monetary Fund that took place in May. In a document that is publicly available on the Treasury website, the IMF says:
	"For over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth—an exceptional achievement...the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global challenges."
	It goes on to say:
	"The 2008 budget judgment was appropriate, as was its commitment to fiscal tightening over the next few years."
	It continues:
	"The inflation targeting regime should remain unaltered...Key elements of the fiscal framework".
	That is a very important endorsement of the direction of Government policy that Opposition parties who call for quick fixes should bear in mind before propounding such policies.

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will know that the inflation target is a medium-term target. He will also appreciate the very strong endorsement that we are seeing from independent commentators from a number of sources about the underlying policies that this Government have introduced and remain strongly in support of, and which have brought about this sustained period of economic stability. I am confident that that ongoing stability will prove very important in helping the British economy to weather the storm that we are experiencing and face in the coming weeks. Maintaining that stability will be equally important to Northern Ireland. I remind the hon. Gentleman that last time we debated this, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) boiled it down to the difference between his party and mine. He said:
	"there are no easy or quick solutions and no magic wands. The essence of our argument against the Government is that we have entered this downturn—and it is a downturn—"
	I do not think that anybody is arguing with that—
	"uniquely ill prepared to deal with it."—[ Official Report, 24 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 162.]
	My suggestion to his party and to those who would argue for a different course of action is that the IMF profoundly disagrees with that. I think that parties that purport to present themselves as ready for government ought to bear in mind how important the underlying strength of the economy is, and no action should be taken that would jeopardise that stability.
	As higher fuel prices lead to less demand, we might even receive less revenue from fuel duty than we otherwise would have done, so the concept of a windfall is profoundly misjudged. VAT is a percentage of the price, so it rises with fuel prices, but as people spend more on fuel, there is likely to be an impact on VAT revenues from elsewhere in the economy, leaving the overall level of VAT roughly the same—particularly as businesses can reclaim the VAT that they spend on fuel. It is also compulsory under EU law to charge VAT on fuel, and the House should remember that the UK has one of the lowest rates of VAT on fuel in the EU.
	As well as suggesting that we were going to get a windfall—and I do not think that we will—the motion also tells us how to spend it, and suggests a review of winter fuel payments and tax credits. I am, of course, always happy to listen to proposals from any Member, but hon. Members will know that tax credits support around 20 million men, women and children across the country, and those credits have made a major contribution to lifting hundreds of thousands of children above the poverty line. They mean that 3 million out of Britain's 7 million families with children now receive more in tax credits and child benefit than they pay in income tax. Let me say that again: of the 7 million families with children in the UK, almost half now pay less in income tax than they receive in benefits through tax credits and child benefit.

Sammy Wilson: I have listened to the Minister's argument, and it is a refinement of the argument put forward time and time again to excuse the Government for not reducing fuel duty at a time when money from VAT on fuel and North sea revenues would be expected to rise. The explanation that the Minister has given is not borne out by the figures that the Government published in the Budget report for 2009, which do not show, over the next three years, either a fall in North sea revenue duties or VAT duties. How does the Minister square what she says with the Government's published figures?

William McCrea: Whilst the Minister said that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest VAT burdens, she did not say that it has one of the highest rates of tax burden on fuel in the EU. Let us have all the facts.

Jane Kennedy: But the hon. Gentleman will know that VAT rates are very difficult to adjust in the face of the European Union rules under which we work. I say to him and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that the Government responded to the increase in pressures on household costs by not raising fuel duty in the Budget in 2008, and the Chancellor will keep all of those factors under review—as he always does—when considering the measures introduced in the pre-Budget report.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that the situation means that families throughout the UK are facing increasing costs. We have made a contribution towards helping them to do that. I accept that I cannot make promises to the hon. Gentleman that will mitigate all of those costs. We have acknowledged the situation by taking action to help families with older people in their households, and we know that fuel costs cause them great anxiety because of the need to maintain a warm environment, particularly for older people in poorer health.
	I do not accept that we have not been doing enough. We have been supporting families for the last 11 years, and we are continuing to do so today. In fact, we are providing even more support, recognising the tougher time that people are facing. At the same time as we are helping people to deal with the challenges, we are tackling their causes, including the ongoing credit squeeze. We are supporting the Bank of England's special liquidity scheme, which is helping to stabilise the financial markets and to promote confidence. We are also working to strengthen mortgage finance markets, which funded about a third of new mortgages last summer, but which have since frozen. During my visit to Northern Ireland on Monday, I was interested to note that house building appeared to have slowed, when it had grown very strongly there. I accept that Northern Ireland, like other parts of the UK, is experiencing the challenges that the British economy is facing.

David Simpson: The Financial Secretary mentioned an increase in the price of electricity, but does she know that Northern Ireland faces another 14 per cent. increase, come audit time?

Justine Greening: I will come to that shortly. On interest rates, my understanding is that it is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, not our side, who are chuntering behind the scenes about what the Bank of England should do. The Government talk about leadership, but the reality is that there is a complete lack of leadership. Unfortunately, however, the Government's involvement in the cost of living goes beyond that.
	Let us set aside their claim about rising global costs. We can see that global trends are pushing up the cost of commodities such as corn and energy, but the Government have choices that they can make. The Financial Secretary has challenged me on what the Conservatives would do, and I will come to that. However, rather than trying to come up with solutions, the Government are, for many millions of people up and down the country, now part of the problem, because they are adding to the economic burden that people face. Despite all their warm words, and what they claim is their understanding of people's predicament as they try to keep up with rising fuel, energy and food costs, the Government have nevertheless decided to add to their economic misery.
	Ministers must understand that their actions have serious and damaging consequences for people's cost of living. We talked earlier about dithering over the fuel duty rise. What families need from the Government is certainty. They need to be able to plan ahead. I will tell the Financial Secretary what she could do right now: she could tell us when the Government are going to make an announcement on their planned fuel duty rise.  [ Interruption. ] She says that they may make an announcement at the Budget.

Justine Greening: What the Economic Secretary has fundamentally missed is the other beneficial aspect of our measure. It would not only provide stability for household finances—although that is the most important part of what we are doing—but provide stability, as she ought to know, for the public finances. Our proposal would ensure that at times of rising oil prices, the Government would receive an unexpected windfall. Ministers have questioned our proposal— [ Interruption ]—and indeed, they are shaking their heads right now. However, they should talk to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose work clearly shows that there is a net benefit to the Exchequer of rising oil prices.
	The problem is—

Vincent Cable: Let me add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell). A couple of weeks ago we had an Opposition day debate on the same subject, but no Ulster Members had an opportunity to speak on that occasion. As I do not want to restrict the time available to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is obviously waiting to speak, I shall be fairly brief.
	A couple of distinctive Northern Irish issues are relevant to the debate. The first is that as Northern Ireland has a large rural hinterland, it is probably proportionally more affected by transport costs and by a relatively poor train system. The impact on the farming community is particularly significant, and it involves factors that also affect Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall and other parts of England.
	A second issue that was mentioned by neither the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) nor the hon. Member for East Londonderry is Northern Ireland's proximity to the Irish border. Nowadays there is a large amount of cross-border trade and movement across the Euroland frontier. Anyone importing goods from southern Ireland or crossing the border to buy them will know of the substantial impact of sterling devaluation against the euro, which is probably about 15 per cent. That currency change is an important element of the increased cost of living in Northern Ireland, which may be mentioned in the winding-up speeches.
	I want to develop some of the points made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) about the oil sector. Although the motion contains nothing desperately controversial—it is worded very openly, and I am happy to support it—I worry, like the Minister, about the constant references to a windfall from oil. It is tempting to jump on to the bandwagon, as the Conservatives and the Scottish National party have, and I am tempted to imagine that there is a pot of gold that can be spent on good causes, but I want to dwell a little on where the money comes from.
	The sums that I have seen suggest that if we are talking purely about the existing windfall tax from the North sea—the petroleum revenue tax and the extra rate of corporation tax—if oil prices were maintained at their present level throughout the financial year, there could be an extra £6 billion from that source and, on similar assumptions, £3 billion or £4 billion from value added tax. That apparently quite large sum would come simply from higher oil prices.
	There are two points to be made. First, we are talking about not a separate silo, but a single stream of Government revenue. What is happening to oil revenue is no different from what is happening to stamp duty or income tax. Some taxes are going up, while others are going down. This is not free money waiting to be allocated, and if it were allocated to something else there would presumably be an opportunity cost. That is the obvious point.
	Secondly, there is a slightly more subtle point, which I think the Financial Secretary was trying to make, although I do not know how subtle it proved to be because I had to leave the Chamber. It is an economic point: as the fact that oil prices are rising contributes to a slow-down in the economy and therefore has an impact on income tax, corporation tax and all the other taxes that are going down, it is questionable whether there is a net revenue gain.
	I am on the Financial Secretary's side, and I am somewhat sceptical about the existence of a net gain. The think-tanks have clearly reflected on the matter, which they consider to be complex, and they have not come up with any definitive conclusions. I think it would help the Government to make their own case, not only with Opposition parties but in the drawing rooms and pubs of Britain, if they explained the model that they use to produce their figures. I do not know whether the outcome would be positive or negative, but I think it would increase their credibility if they explained their calculations rather than the Financial Secretary simply telling us that she has the information on good authority. After all, it may or may not be good authority.
	The hon. Member for Putney spoke of the new approach to the duty regulator. She is to be commended for coming up with a new idea that deserves serious discussion, and although I think that she will acknowledge that it is based largely on an idea that the Scottish nationalists have been advancing for some years, it has joined the mainstream of the debate, so let us discuss it.
	On the basis of what the hon. Lady said today and what I heard her say on the radio during the rain intervals at Wimbledon on Sunday, I think that I have pieced the argument together, and I do not think what she is saying is enormously different from what the Government are doing. When oil prices rise, a decision is made not to increase the escalator. The difference is that the Government do that on an ad hoc basis, while the hon. Lady suggests that it should be done according to a formula.
	During our last debate on the cost of living, the Chief Secretary acknowledged that the price of petrol had been reduced by, I think, about 16p a litre as a result of the freezing of the escalator since 1999. The hon. Member for Putney argues that such action could be taken more effectively if it were taken systematically. Her explanation—it was more detailed on the radio than it was today—is that because there is a cycle in prices, we can be reasonably confident that when prices rise the duty can be withheld, and when they fall again it can be increased. It all balances out in tax-neutral way.
	The problem is that the oil market does not actually work in cycles. In the 19th century, when Daniel Day-Lewis was drilling for oil, there was a cycle, and then for the best part of a century there was not, because the oil industry was controlled by companies that had access to cheap oil. They controlled the supply to keep the price flat. Since then, we have had three rather random shocks: one caused by a cartel, one caused by a war and one caused by specifically economic conditions—rapidly rising demand in Asia and restrictions in capacity.
	I think that to create a model based on the idea that there is some regular cycle, as the Conservatives seem to be proposing, does not correspond to the way in which the system works. To make their proposal work, they would need a reference price—a trend price—against which they could make judgments on whether the price was above or below normal. The price would have to be established somehow, and I do not know how they would establish it.
	The honest truth is that no one, whether they know a lot about the oil industry or not, has the faintest idea what will happen to world oil prices. They could continue to rise indefinitely, as some theorists argue. If that were to happen, under this proposal there would have to be a permanent freeze on increased revenue, leading to a black hole of some kind which would have to be explained. The price might come right back down again because of a recession or increased supply, in which case the Conservatives would be able to pick up revenue, but they have not explained whether that would be possible to the extent of cancelling out the original concession, and whether there would be indexing. It would all be very difficult, although I do not want to be too damning, because the idea may be in its preliminary stages.
	The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say that what she proposes would stabilise the impact on households. That is obviously true, and it is an advantage of her approach. It is, however, untrue to say, as she did, that it would stabilise Government revenue, because it would do the opposite. That is a simple matter of logic—it must destabilise Government revenue. When the hon. Lady's proposal is analysed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others, they will make that point very strongly. Putting in the hands of a future Chancellor a policy that destabilises Government revenue would not be terribly helpful. Perhaps we should return to the issue later, but it has some relevance to the debate, because the motion refers to the potential source of oil revenue.
	The Conservatives are pushing their constructive idea on oil prices, and I am pushing mine on the housing market. I want briefly to refer to, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry has mentioned, the impact of the slow-down in the housing market in the Province. I should, perhaps, be less kind now to the Financial Secretary, as we had a debate a few months ago on what was happening in the housing market, and I ask her to read some of the things she said then, when I was accused of scaremongering, exaggerating and finding doom in that otherwise happy corner of the economy. If she looks back, she will find that what I was saying was deeply conservative compared with what is now happening with the falls in sales and prices and the ripples felt in the building industry, which have had devastating consequences, and which none of us, including me, anticipated.
	I commend to the Financial Secretary an idea that I and others, including some Labour Members, have been putting forward. One way of helping to stabilise the situation, and also of doing an important social good, would be to take advantage of the fact that there are now substantial amounts of unsold property and unfinished developments—including, I suspect, in the fairly prosperous suburbs around Belfast and elsewhere—which social landlords such as the council and registered social landlords could acquire at a very substantial discount and make available for rent on the basis of need. There is a major opportunity for the Government not to intervene directly, but to empower social landlords to do that. It would be a very attractive economic proposition. I am aware that it would raise borrowing levels, but as an economic intervention, it would be a sensible and helpful thing to do, and I ask the Government to reflect on that.

David Simpson: To a certain extent, I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he will know that in November last year we linked up our electricity through an interconnector, but we are told that Northern Ireland will not receive the benefit of that for some years, and the reason is that the power plants in the Republic of Ireland are so old that they need a lot of investment in repairs and so forth in order to come up to the level of what we would term efficiency.

Peter Bone: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who is always worth listening to. His experience in Northern Ireland is most helpful to this debate, but so are his comments about the rest of the United Kingdom. I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on his reasoned and thoughtful introduction to the debate.
	I was amazed when the Minister said that the Government would oppose the motion. That is like opposing apple pie. How can they oppose a motion that proposes the consideration of ways to protect the poorest in our society?
	When I was a new Member, I noticed early on how assiduous hon. Members from Northern Ireland—from all parties—are at attending debates in this House. They must be some of the hardest working Members in the House, and they should be congratulated on their efforts on behalf of the United Kingdom.
	Wherever people live in this country, the increasing cost of living is reducing their quality of life. This is not a "new Labour" Government: there is nothing new about them. They are like any old Labour Government: they tax and spend, tax and spend, and then destroy the economy. Then a Conservative Government come into power and have to spend many months fixing the mess that they have inherited.
	I suppose that there is one difference. Former Prime Minister Blair tried to hide the tax increases so that people did not notice them, but now the stealth taxes are coming home to roost. The current Prime Minister does not bother. He does not even try to hide the tax increases. He scrapped the 10p rate of tax, harming millions of our most disadvantaged citizens, but at the same time the Government continue to waste millions and millions of pounds on useless projects. Before a Labour Member jumps up—oh, there is no one on the Labour Benches apart from the Minister and the Parliamentary Private Secretary—

Mark Oaten: I am not sure that I can agree with the final comment made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). In many ways, I do not believe that the cost of living should be such a party political issue because, as the Minister and others have said, there are many matters that are out of the control of Westminster politicians.
	A lot has been said about the problems of poverty connected to the current change of economic pace, especially for the hardest-hit families. We have talked a lot about fuel poverty, but I want to say something about a group of people, the middle classes, who are often ignored these days. Quite rightly, they are not a political priority, and they are not usually affected by changes to the economy, but my judgment is that the current downturn—or beginning of recession, whatever one may wish to call it—is starting to impact on a new group of people. I am talking about those hard-working couples—they often have two children, and often both parents are working—who risk being ignored by politicians. Suddenly, and for the first time, they are finding that they are being hit very hard indeed by the cost of living. Of course, it is absolutely right that the Government, with their winter fuel allowance and various tax credit schemes, focus on the poorest in society, but let us not ignore those others—the many hard-working individuals—who fall outside the schemes and are suffering and finding things tough. I want to link that point to the groups in rural communities who, given their dependency on vehicles and on certain forms of energy, are finding things particularly tough.
	To try to find out what was going on in my own constituency, I created a non-political survey that was advertised in the local newspaper and did not mention any political parties. I do not for a minute suggest that it is a scientific survey, and I hope that the questions were not leading. I can see that the Minister is cynical about the prospect of any politician being able to put in a newspaper anything without a political word in it, but the survey is totally non-political. I am genuinely interested to find out some information, and to be perfectly honest, I am not standing at the next election, so there is no political gain from my doing so.
	The responses so far have been quite alarming. They show that the groups being hit by the changing economic climate are not those who are usually hit. The figures suggest that 90 per cent. of people who filled in the survey believe that they are going to be worse off this time next year, and in line with the some of the more respected surveys from various think tanks and groups, there is certainly doom and pessimism about where the situation is heading.
	In the survey, we looked at four indicators: people's attitudes towards food prices, fuel, energy and housing. On each, there was pessimism and concern about what might happen. Petrol is a particular concern for Members who represent large rural constituencies. Often, families are dependent not on one car but on two, and people said to me in the survey that it now costs them about £20 a week more to fill up their cars. I suspect that, anecdotally, we could all say the same. I can remember when it cost me £50 to fill my car up about a year and a half ago; it certainly costs me £70 now. It is the same for my wife, which means that it costs £40 a week extra to fill our car up, and although I was off the day we did maths at school, that to me is a lot of money each month—about £160 a month extra just to fill up the car for many couples living in rural communities.
	That is an awful lot of extra income to find and to absorb, and when the Government and others say, "Yes, but there could be a hidden benefit, in that it might persuade people to use alternative transport," I must say that I would be laughed at in the 56 villages in my constituency if I told people to try to take a bus, a train or another form of transport. For couples with children, trying to do school runs or having to take complicated routes, there is just no rural transport network that can act as a realistic alternative. Some respondents to the survey said that where there had been the opportunity to walk to a post office or to a shop as an alternative, those rural post offices have now disappeared—even more requirement, therefore, to get into the car and absorb those increased petrol costs.
	The second indicator was energy prices, and the survey shows that individuals' electricity, gas and fuel costs have been increased by about 20 per cent. However, owing to the focus on rural areas, I want to talk about those individuals who are not able to obtain gas but are dependent on oil to heat their homes and to provide their fuel. They have faced an enormous increase in costs. I declare an interest, because my monthly direct debit for oil is £225 and has gone up enormously over the past two or three years. If one gathers together any group of individuals in villages or communities that cannot obtain gas, they first talk about trying to find a different oil provider in their area. The figures are enormous, and they are hitting rural communities very hard, because there is just no alternative for them. They cannot switch suppliers as one might do with gas; they are dependent on oil.
	The regulation of gas and electricity would help enormously; I hope that the Minister will pick up on that point in her response. Ofgem and Energywatch are legally required to act as the consumers' champion, to make sure that something at least is done on prices. However, oil for heating one's house and liquefied petroleum gas fall outside the regulatory system. The Minister may or may not be aware that changes to the regulation of energy are due to be made in October and November. It would be enormously helpful to the millions of people who are dependent on oil if that form of fuel were also regulated, and if Ofgem looked at the matter, just as it does in relation to gas and electricity. My fear is that because that form of fuel has not been regulated, companies were able to get away with prices that would not have been acceptable in the gas and electricity markets.
	Democratic Unionist party Members touched on energy prices and on the fact that individuals who pay by pre-pay meters lose out enormously. I am lucky enough to be on the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has just concluded a study of energy prices. When the big six suppliers came to give evidence, I asked them to justify the fact that customers who use pre-pay meters pay 17 per cent. more than those who pay by direct debit. They struggled to do so. They claimed that a meter scheme was more expensive to administer. Of course there will be more administration costs for people who have meters than for people who pay by direct debit, but the increased costs are not equal to the increase in prices. It would help enormously if the Government could speed things up and look at ways of changing the market. The Government could do something about introducing smart meters, as opposed to pre-pay meters; they could help in that respect. Finally on energy, I asked one of the big six to try to give me an indication of how people were coping with increased bills. One of the representatives said that their company's bad debt had doubled in the past 12 months. That graphic statistic shows how difficult individuals are finding it to pay those bills.
	The Minister did not really answer the question that I put to her in an intervention about the comparison between our energy prices and those in mainland Europe. It is my understanding, from the evidence that the Select Committee received, that owing to the way in which our market is constructed, we as consumers pay more for gas and electricity than our colleagues in mainland Europe. They, of course, face the same global economic problems that we do. We need to look at how the market is constructed in this country, because it is adding to our problems.

Kitty Ussher: That is not the case. In fact, we have fallen down the ranking in fuel duty taxation compared with other countries in Europe. Including tax and duty, the UK has the seventh lowest petrol price in the EU 15 and the 19th lowest in the EU 27. We have fallen from our habitual rank, when the Conservative party was in power, of second highest in the EU 15 to around the middle of the range, so I would politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman check his facts.
	In the past 10 years, real household disposable income has risen substantially, by more than 30 per cent., and income per head has risen faster than in any other G7 country, taking us from the bottom of the pile to second place. We are now second in the G7 in terms of GDP per capita, whereas before 1997 we were bottom. We have experienced the fastest rise in income per head of any G7 country since 1997. Real disposable income increased by 25 per cent. between 1997 and 2006. Most importantly, growth for the bottom 40 per cent. of people in our country is greater than that for richer households. Employment has also risen by around 3 million, to record highs. The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) tried to imply that things were worse under this Government than under previous Governments, but the facts do not bear her out.
	In Northern Ireland, as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, the economy is stronger, with unemployment halved—it is now the third lowest of any UK region—and 100,000 more people in work than was the case under the previous Conservative Government. We are seeing progress all the time, as the new era of stability in Northern Ireland brings new investment and jobs. This means that Northern Ireland, liked the rest of the UK, can respond far more strongly to the challenges that we all face. We cannot be complacent, however. We need to work to tackle the causes of these challenges and to support people in the meantime.
	Obviously, no national Government by themselves can stop world fuel and food prices rising or end a global credit squeeze, but we are working with our international partners at every level, because these challenges need international solutions. As I have said, we also need to support people in the meantime. We are doing that through the delay in the planned April fuel duty increase and, yes, the Chancellor is carefully considering the October increase. We are also supporting people through the increases in personal allowances this year and through the additional payments that will be made with the winter fuel payment this winter in the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland. We will continue to support people in that way.
	I want to turn now to the specific points that have been raised in today's very useful debate. We challenged the hon. Member for Putney about her own policy during her speech. She mentioned a fuel stabiliser policy, but, when challenged, she said that it was not a policy, simply a consultation. That is yet another example of the Conservatives using salesman-like tactics to get in through the front door of our nation's households, even though they would be unable to follow them through.

Christopher Fraser: If the Minister is saying that the Government are serious about people suffering from fuel poverty, why have they cut the Warm Front budget for next three years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we start the debate, it may help if I offer the House guidance on the scope of debate on the order. The order applies to Lincolnshire police authority. The authority was originally considered for capping, along with six other police authorities and Portsmouth city council. The debate may cover the position of Lincolnshire police authority and refer to the fact that the other seven authorities are not to be capped, but it would not be in order to focus exclusively on those authorities that are not being capped, as they are not covered by the order. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

Keith Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which both he and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing Police Minister accepted representations from Leicestershire police authority and others for which caps were proposed. My hon. Friend has said that Leicestershire will be capped next year. Can he confirm that he will be prepared to accept more representations before finally deciding on next year's position?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is always assiduous in making a strong case for his area's interests, but the police authority budget, following the action that I have proposed to the House, means that the authority will have more than £10 million above the level of last year's budget. It can add a 26 per cent. rise on its council tax precept, which is more that it said that it needed to set a balanced budget. We have taken into careful account the full case made by the authority, both in writing and in person to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who, I am pleased to say, is sitting on the Front Bench, and to me.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend has reinforced the point. In the earlier debate, the Government were put on notice of this situation. It was clearly flagged up that, in addition to the other pressures that I have mentioned, the financial risk as regards the financing of the police service had in effect been transferred away from the Government on to the citizens of Lincolnshire. A perverse situation has developed.
	This is yet another example of the situation whereby, first, we are reaching a stage where the capping regime in this form has gone beyond its useful lifespan, and secondly, it is demonstrably clear that the way in which the formula works is not transparent or seen to be fair. That applies not only to police authorities but to local authorities generally. There are problems with the national police funding formula and with the formula for the revenue support grant. People do not have faith in how these settlements are calculated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, in due course an incoming Conservative Government will need to take some fundamental action on how we allocate and distribute grant.
	The Government are trying to shift and shuffle responsibility. I see that the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is here. He is very good at shifting and shuffling responsibility— [ Interruption ]—and making sedentary comments as he goes. That is a speciality of his; we are all used to it now, and he may as well know that it goes straight over my head, so he can save his breath.
	The reality is that the Government created this situation by their own economic incompetence and made it worse by a lack of transparency and honesty in how they have dealt with local government. Despite having been given early notice of the problem by right hon. and hon. Members representing the areas concerned, they did nothing to address the structural problems; instead, they are applying a sticking plaster, in the form of the capping power, far too late.
	At the end of the day, of course, the official Opposition will not oppose this order, but we have to set the record straight and say that it is not entirely fair to point the finger at Lincolnshire and the police authority. The Government should turn the mirror on themselves and accept that this is the consequence of their policy and their failure. Sadly, it is the people of Lincolnshire who have to face the consequences.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). We served together on the Select Committee on Justice. He did not blame the Government quite as much in that Committee as he did tonight. I have to differ from him; it is not the Government's fault that they have to cap Lincolnshire. As we heard from the Minister, the Government have been generous to the extent that they allowed an increase well above that they allowed other authorities.
	I do not claim to know everything about the way in which policing operates in Lincolnshire, but as the House knows, Leicestershire was one of the police authorities originally proposed for capping, and following representations made to the Minister and my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who is on the Front Bench today, the Government decided not to cap it, but may do so next year. Hence my intervention on the Minister to ensure that there will be an opportunity before that process begins for authorities that were not capped this year to make representations.
	Members representing constituencies in Lincolnshire, on both sides of the House, will want to make specific points about what the Opposition spokesperson described as structural problems affecting policing in that area, which they feel justify—or not—the proposed increase put to the Government. I shall confine my remarks to concern about the number of police authorities that were originally proposed for capping, which will also be of interest to those in Lincolnshire. It is a worry because a problem that is developing may develop further in future. It means that the Government and police authorities will have to take a closer look at a situation where for the first time—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—seven of the eight authorities that would have been affected were police authorities.
	Next week, the Government will publish their response to Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report, which looks at the issue of a more efficient, more effective police force. I do not expect either of the Ministers here today to tell us what is in that response, but during the past six months, as we conducted our review into policing, I and my colleagues in the Select Committee found that the issue of police funding came up in all our discussions. It was raised by almost all the chief constables we spoke to—I think that we took evidence from 15 of the 42 chief constables in England and Wales, but unfortunately not the chief constable of Lincolnshire. Each one of them raised the issue of funding.
	I shall raise three issues that I hope will be of benefit not just to the Lincolnshire police authority, but to other police authorities which may face such action next year. The first concerns new technology. It is a mystery to me why each different police authority is able to purchase its own equipment separately at whatever cost it negotiates. Surely procurement for all our police forces, including Lincolnshire, would ensure that the cost to all of them would be less. That may have meant that Lincolnshire would not have had to ask for such a rise.
	In Leicestershire, new technology—hand-held computers —was purchased from a different company to the one that I discovered was used by Staffordshire when I visited Staffordshire constabulary last Friday. It purchases from a different company from Greater Manchester police authority, which the Select Committee visited on Monday. More central guidance, with all police forces procuring equipment from the same company, would save a great deal of money and make it relatively easy for police authorities to communicate with each other. That applies to other computers and technology as well as hand-held computers.
	Different authorities may buy different computer systems from different companies, thus making it difficult in some cases to transfer data from one to another. We already know that there is a problem with, for example, Lincolnshire's ability to provide information through Europol to police authorities in Europe, because it operates a different computer system.
	I am sure that the Government have made the right decision, because I know that both Ministers will have examined the representations carefully. However, we should consider such matters, because police authorities generally could benefit.

Lembit �pik: I simply do not understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that that interventioneloquent though it wasgoes any way towards explaining the evident self-contradiction in the Conservative party's position. Thirteen years agowe are not talking about the 1980s herethe Conservatives capped the Lincolnshire police authority. When they were sitting on the other side of the House, they did exactly the same thing that they are condemning the current Labour Government for doing. It is encouraging to hear the hon. Gentleman say that times have changed, but I remind him of the simple statistic that between 1991 and 1997, the Conservatives capped 31 authorities. I do not understand how he thinks he can get away with saying that capping is a thing of the past, when the Conservatives used it to gay abandon throughout the time they were in government in the 1990s. Perhaps there are other political reasons why Conservative Members are so keen on condemning capping now, but they need to provide a great deal more evidence before any Member could seriously believe that if the Conservatives were in government they would do anything other than what the present Government are doing.
	Let me move on to deal with the Liberal Democrat position. I agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the capping regime has passed its sell-by date, but so has council tax. The underlying issue is that we have an unfair system for funding these services. As hon. Members will know, Sir Michael Lyons's review recommended the abolition of capping and said that last-minute decisions were costly to administer, so

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Were it not, I certainly would have stopped the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he has heard the remarks that have just been made.

Quentin Davies: I was rather brought up to believe that the prime and foundational task of a Member of Parliament was to defend his or her constituents against unreasonable, excessive or unjust taxation. I rise this afternoon, conscious that that is what I am trying to do. I am struck by the fact that no Conservative Memberfrom Lincolnshire or anywhere elseappears to be remotely interested in playing that particular role. They are here, either explicitly or silently, to defend a completely unreasonable precept proposed by Lincolnshire police authority. With the honourable and laudable exception of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is not in his place, Conservative Members from Lincolnshire have been so much behind this preceptunreasonable and absurd as it isthat I am led to believe that the Conservatives on the police authority were whipped to vote in its favour.
	It is against that background that we should interpret what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has said this afternoon. I have nothing against him personally: he is a Front-Bench spokesman and he has to do as good a job as he can; he did so on the basis of a very bad brief. We know what that job consists of, however, because we see it done every day. Opposition Front Benchers come to the House and say, It's all the Government's faultit's all terrible. This afternoon the hon. Gentleman talked of a long-term malaise that was apparently all the Government's fault, without ever saying what the Conservatives would do differently. He did not suggest for a moment that they would introduce a different level or form of grant, or change the formula. What is more, he did not have the courage of his convictions in criticising the Government. Obviously he does not want to make himself even more unpopular in Lincolnshire by voting against the order, so he announced that he would not vote against it or call on his colleagues to do so.
	In terms of its content the hon. Gentleman's speech was a complete washout, although it was delivered in his usual charming fashion. As I have said, I do not blame him in any way. All that he is doing is coming to the House just as his colleagues do. It is only because we listen to the same thing every day that we can see through it. I understand why the public might initially think, That sounds very plausible: something must be wrong, and it is all the Government's faulthow terrible. Nice Tories, with their modern image, would not apply their critical faculties and realise that what is being proposed is complete air, complete hollowness, complete nothingness. That is the background to so many debates in the House of Commons nowadays, and to so many Opposition motions.
	Let me turn to the specifics of Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is very well policed. We are fortunate enough to have a good police force, and there are very good relationships between the public and the police. That is not the case in every part of the country. In rather more than 20 years in politics representing the people of south Lincolnshire in slightly different constituenciesthe constituency boundaries changed midstreamI have never encountered a case of police corruption or police violence. I will touch wood, because we all know that human beings are fallible everywhere, but I do not believe that there have been any such cases over that period, and probably for a long time before. We are deeply appreciative of that.
	It is perfectly reasonable for a chief constable to have ambitious desires to develop the force, improve the service to the public and improve the facilities available to officers and civilian staff. I am sure that I would feel the same if I were a chief constable. Anyone who runs an organisation feels like that. There is an element of empire-building in any form of management. In the private sector it is controlled by competition: those who become uncompetitive go out of business. In the public sector, it must be controlled by some other discipline. There must be some external countervailing force or influence to prevent excessive spending. That is why we need the disciplines that we have in the public sector today, one of which is the capping mechanism.
	I do not blame the chief constablea previous chief constable, in factfor producing a wish list that seems to have been excessively imaginative. I do, however, blame the police authority for not only accepting the wish list but adding to it, in an extremely uncritical fashion. I read with great attention the business plan and budget that the authority produced last summer, and begged its members not to proceed with it. Several things were wrong with it. First, it was far too long and full of verbiage and jargon. It was very incoherent and badly organised, and as a result very unconvincing. I think that someone else should draft the police authority's business plans in future. Secondly, it made a number of extravagant demands without any critical examination of the possibility of internal savings.
	A year ago almost to the day, I wrote a letter to the chairman of the police authority and the chief constable asking a number of questions. I asked, for example, why the number of civilians employed in the force could not be increased. Lincolnshire has a lower civilian quota than other shire counties. I received no reasoned answer to that question. I asked why we were not using specials more, and about a number of aspects of policing that seemed to me to be less than essential. I asked why we did not drop them and use the resources elsewhere, employing the officers concerned in other tasks. More recently, I have asked why our financial proposals do not take account of potential savings from the Flanagan reforms, and why we have notas some constabularies have rightly donetried to anticipate the reforms by getting rid of superfluous bureaucracy in advance. There is a lot of superfluous bureaucracy in the police force.
	The Lincolnshire police force has over the past few months not been behaving in the way we would expect if it were true that it has been reduced to penury; far from it, in fact. We opened a very nice new police station in Grantham last year, and within a month or two it was being repainted. On a Saturday afternoon a few weeks ago in Lincolnshire, I saw two policemen with speed guns engaged in traffic policing, but traffic policing should, on the whole, be done by civilians operating electronic equipment. I am always told that the real strain on policing occurs at the weekendsthat that is the expensive time, and that that is when there are often law and order difficulties in various places, such as at football matches on Saturday afternoons. I believe that we should use more specials at such times, but leaving that point to one side, there were those two uniformed officers not chasing after dangerous criminals or engaged in the kind of dramatic police operations that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) was saying will have to be sacrificed if Lincolnshire does not get the money it is demanding, but simply handing out speeding tickets.
	Neither my analysis of the Lincolnshire police budget and business plan, nor my own experience of Lincolnshire police, nor the reactions of my constituentswhom I believe are 100 per cent. behind me in everything I am saying on the subjectlead me to think that the demand for a 78 or 79 per cent. increase in the police precept from one year to the next was remotely reasonable or justified. The police authority's task should be not to accept uncritically what the force are asking for, let alone to add to its wish list, but to act as an intermediary between the police and the public, and to take account of the taxpayers' interests and of what the taxpayer can reasonably be expected to pay, and of what it is reasonable to ask for by way of an increase in charge for a public service from one week, month and year to the next.
	Last week, we were talking about how great an increase in the pay of Members of Parliament it might be reasonable to ask for, even if in the past they have been underpaid in relation to other professions, which is, of course, perfectly true. We asked whether it would be acceptable to have a sudden dramatic catch-up over the course of a year. Even if there is an argument that Lincolnshire should have been more generously funded in the past, which I think it should have been, and even if there are arguments about the funding formulawhich there are, and I believe the funding formula could be greatly improvedis it reasonable to go for a 78 per cent. increase? Was that even sensible or pragmatic? The people who did this have public responsibilities. They are supposed to act in a way that is not only sound in terms of the philosophy of what they are doing, but which makes sense pragmatically in terms of making it likely that they will achieve the objectives of the institution for which they have a charge. They suddenly asked for 78 per centI think the figure is 78.5 per cent. actually, but I always say 78 per cent. to try to be fair.  [Interruption.] The Minister says the figure is 79 per cent. Regardless of which is correct, to ask for such an increase from one year to the next is immediately not to be taken seriously. Therefore, I think the police authority did a very irresponsible job.
	Moreover, the police authority is entirely responsible, as it knew the score. It had people, including me, begging it not to go down that road, and it knew it would have to rebuild if it was capped. Therefore, it is entirely responsible for this 500,000that is the figure we have heard this afternoonwhich it will cost to rebuild. I have called in my constituency, and I call now in the House, for the resignation of the chairman of the police authority and of all those members of it who voted for this completely inordinate increase, because I think they did a very bad day's work in doing so. They were quite irresponsible in the way in which they conducted that exercise, and they have now lost all credibility. I suspect they have lost a lot of credibility in Whitehall, and they have certainly lost a lot of credibility with the public in Lincolnshire, who can see that they were trying to get 100 or more out of them for a band D property, and they have now succeeded in getting only 30 for such a property. Also, as has been made clear, there will not be any redundancies as a result. A lot of the panicky propaganda that has been mouthed in Lincolnshire over the past few months has been seen to be as empty as the rhetoric we heard this afternoon from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Douglas Hogg: No, I will not give way. I had to give way to the hon. Gentleman when he sat on these Benches. I am happy to say that I do not have to give way to him now, and I do not propose to do so. I hope that I have made my position clear.
	I have no doubt that my constituents will be relieved by the fact that there has been a capping order. Inevitably, they were distressed by an increase at the level proposed by the police authority. Inevitably, they will also be relieved that they will pay less as a consequence of the capping order, but we must understand that what the police authority did reflected a serious underlying problem within the Lincolnshire police force.
	Those of us who have represented the county for many years, and my hon. Friends who have been in their places throughout this debate, know well that the Lincolnshire police force faces a serious problem of structural underfunding. Only a limited number of sources of finance are available to the police service. There is the precept, there is central Government grant and there is a special grant. The problem that Lincolnshire facesand has faced for several yearsis that the underlying grant has been too low. It is possible that we could criticise the police authority, in temperate and courteous language, for not having in the past increased the precept by as much as it could have done. I am inclined to think that there is some merit in that criticism and if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to that, I would have had some sympathy with him.
	It is also possible that further savings could be made by the police service. I was, many years ago, a Home Office Minister with responsibility for the police and I am conscious that there are few police forces of which one could say that there are no further savings that they could sensibly make. However, that does not go to the root of the matter, which is one of structural underfunding.
	The Lincolnshire police force is now looking at a structural shortfalla deficitin 2010 of 14 million. It can put that right only through an increase in its funding or a decrease in expenditure. One of the real problems that face police servicesand local authorities, fire and ambulance servicesis that more than 80 per cent. of their budget goes on manpower. If police services want to shrink their budgets, they have to cut manpower. It can be done over time by reducing the number of uniformed officers, but I do not think that many people in Lincolnshire want to see that happen. It can be done by sacking civilian staff, but that involves up-front redundancy costs and then requires uniformed staff to do the tasks previously done by the civilian staff. That also reduces front-line services.
	We should be as unpartisan as we can about this problemand I make that point to the hon. Gentleman. There is a structural problem in Lincolnshire. I suspect that that is also true of Norfolk, Suffolk and some of the other forces. Why that should be so, I am not wholly clear. I have some difficulty in understanding the formula, as does the hon. Gentleman. He attended many a meeting that I did, and he did not understand, any more than I did, exactly how the formula was calculated. I have a strong feeling that the rural areas are being discriminated against. That is not deliberate or malevolent, but because the Government's sympathies are not with the rural areas they have not focused on the matter with the intensity with which they should.
	I suspect that something like the following is true of Lincolnshire. Although it is a sparsely populated county, habitations are located quite close together. There are not many areas of wildness where there is nobody. Areas that contain nobody do not have to be policed too much, but sparsely populated counties with a lot of habitation have an intensive police requirement.

John Hayes: Yes, indeed. It is not only an implicit acknowledgement of the scale of the problem, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend suggests, a transfer of responsibility for solving the problem. People in Lincolnshire will say, We're doing our bit, why isn't the Government doing its bit? We may be judging Ministers too harshly, and at the end of the debate, the Minister may tell us that he will conduct a root-and-branch review of the formula and make a special grant available to the police force, as the Government did last year.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend brings to the debate an understanding and a knowledge that I could not hope to emulate, and he is right to say that the addition of that 3.4 million effectively raised the baseline. It had become the standard, the norm, for the police authority, because it had spent and absorbed it, and the assumptions on which its future plans were predicated were built around that absorption. My hon. Friend has made a useful point. When we debated the matter in previous weeks and months, I wondered whether the Government might not only allow an exceptional rise in the precept but make a similar kind of grant, given the facts that my hon. Friend set out so clearly. That would, in a sense, be a compromise. It would broadcast the message that Government were doing their bit and the council tax payers were doing theirs.
	However, as I say, perhaps the Minister has something up his sleevea rabbit that he will produce from his hatin the form of extra money, or at least a commitment to a root-and-branch reform of the formula. I also hope that he will give a commitmentI make this request to him quite plainlyto meet representatives of the authority and the force as a matter of urgency to plan what will happen in the immediate future and in the next 12 months, so that we avoid a recurrence of these circumstances.
	Others want to speak, and I do not want to test their patience, or the patience of the House, too much, but in summary, we remain in our current circumstances. We have been given a very useful briefing by the police authority, to which I will refer. Lincolnshire remains the lowest spending force per head of population, and the force with the fewest officers per head of population. Despite having less resources than any other force in the country, Lincolnshire police are expected to cover the third biggest geographical area. Is it any wonder that the police authority, but more especially the police force, in the form of the former chief constable and our new chief constablea splendid man, who I know will do his very best with the resources available to himare so worried about their ability to provide the level and quality of policing that, in their judgment, the communities in Lincolnshire need and deserve? The chief constable has said:
	we cannot make the investment into policing in Lincolnshire which we know is necessary to provide acceptable levels of service.
	When policemen make remarks of that kind, we know that there is a serious problem.
	We are not talking about providing an exemplary level of service, or about an ambitiousperhaps unreasonably soplan for how policing might be improved. We are talking about acceptabilitya baseline level of service. Surely my constituents in South Holland and The Deepings, and other residents of Lincolnshire, deserve at least that. I am sure that the Minister, who is a good Minister, would not demur.
	Finally, I hope that the case that has been made is a measured one. The hon. Member for Grantham and StamfordI do not want to be unnecessarily unkind to him, but it is necessary to be reasonably unkind to himclaims that the case has been exaggerated, and is extreme in some way. I totally disagree. I think that the case made by Members of Parliament, local authority representatives and the force has been measured. The authority and the force want to be able to respond to changes in population demands, and they want to devise a plan for dealing with serious organised crime, which does exist in Lincolnshire, despite the bucolic image often painted of our countyand indeed, it is a splendid place to live. They want to develop policing to meet current needs and dynamic demands. They deserve the chance to be able to do so.
	Of course I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) that we must accept the order. I want the police force in Lincolnshire to be able to implement its plans to do its best for Lincolnshire people. Is that unreasonable? I think not.

John Healey: I am pleased to have the support of those on the Conservative Benches in introducing the order, even if they are not going to support it by voting for it this evening.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned the funding settlement. I take him back to what the Association of Chief Police Officers said about the settlement for the police forces around the country:
	The overall settlement is broadly in line with anticipated rises in core costs, and this will help preserve many of the key gains in police officer and police staff numbers made in recent years.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised points about the funding formula for police, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds). As he will know better than many, that was drawn up in conjunction with ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities. It was last reviewed in 2007 and fully consulted on after that to produce the basis on which we have made decisions for the next three years. One of the factors taken into account in arriving at the funding formula is population sparsity in the area concerned. In addition, Lincolnshire is benefiting from the former rural policing fund, which is still distributed to police authorities on the same basis, but now with no strings attached. This year, the contribution from that fund is part of an extra 10.7 million going to Lincolnshire police on top of the general police grant and the revenue that it raises from its council tax precepts.
	We have to base calculations for the funding formula on figures that are consistent across the country, and on the most recent figures produced by the independent Office for National Statistics. Those have weaknesses, particularly as populations across the country become larger, more mixed and more mobile, and it is clear that we have to improve our data and the evidence on which we base funding formulae. That work is ongoing. It is being led by the national statistician, has the strong involvement of the Local Government Association, and reports to and is supported by a group of Ministers jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend the policing Minister and myself. Let me say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that ACPO indicated in a recent report that there has been no crime wave associated with migration into this country. The hon. Gentleman did not argue that point, nor to my knowledge has his police authority, although others have. Nevertheless, we have now created in Government a fund to assist local authorities, including police authorities, in meeting the transitional costs caused by migration pressures such as those that he mentioned.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place, made a series of wider points. As always, my right hon. Friend the policing Minister listened carefully to those, as well as to his special early plea on behalf of his own Leicestershire police authority. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister will meet his police authority as a matter of urgency to discuss the way ahead. He will, and I am sure that that meeting can be fixed without delay.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was right about the need for financial disciplines in all parts of Government, particularly in relation to fall-back powers to be used in extreme cases, as in the situation that we face with Lincolnshire police authority. He has clearly followed closely the decisions that the police authority has taken on its precept and its budget, and he is right to be critical of those. He was sharp in his critique of the vague Conservative position in relation not only to this order but to the wider issue of local government funding, and to wider policy on local government as a whole.
	In response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), I must explain that there is a cost to re-billing, as the police authority knew when it took its decision to set a 29 per cent. increase in its budget for this year and a 79 per cent. increase in its council tax precept. He claimed that the action in the capping order was disproportionate. Given that it results in every band D council tax payer in Lincolnshire having their council tax bill cut by 69 this year, it is not a disproportionate move but a necessary one. People in Lincolnshire will be astonished that the hon. Gentleman intends to lead the Liberal Democrats into the Lobby tonight to vote, in effect, for a 70 increase on council tax bills for this year.

That the draft Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved. [  Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

That the draft African Development Bank (Eleventh Replenishment of the African Development Fund) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved. [  Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved. [  Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

That the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved. [  Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Question agreed to.

Tom Clarke: I should like to start by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the subject of funeral expenses. Highlighting the vexed questions surrounding making a claim for social fund funeral expenses is not regularly debated in the House, so I am particularly grateful. I might also add in my preliminary comments that for fairly obvious reasons this is not a subject with which people easily or willingly engage, but it is none the less a serious issue that, in my view, requires Government intervention.
	I have an excellent working relationship with councillors representing my party on North Lanarkshire council. Indeed, the council has introduced an outstanding best practice initiative on claiming funeral expense payments, which I will describe later. My friend and colleague Councillor William Hogg and I have had extensive discussions about how constituents on low incomes cope with bereavement and, in particular, with funeral expense payments.
	Councillor Hogg represents the former mining community of Moodiesburn, and we will never forget the enormous sacrifice miners made over many decades to the economy, as their health was severely damaged and they contracted diseases such as emphysema, pneumoconiosis and silicosis. We will never forget the darkest day ever suffered by our community, the Auchengeich disaster in which 47 men lost their lives back in 1959. The people of that community will never forget that day, when so many men were killed, women became widows and mothers lost their sons.
	That brings me appropriately to my introductory point: we can fix almost anything where there is a determination to do so, but death is final. When a person dies, people are saddened; when a relative or a close friend dies, we are emotionalin many cases, absolutely devastated. When we are in such a state of shock and there is no money to bury or to pay for a cremation, we do not have time to grieve properly because we are anxious to avoid the embarrassing humiliation of a funeral without dignity. There is, of course, a safety net in the shape of the social fund, but I am sorry to say that public understanding and knowledge of that fund is not as widely known as it should be.
	There are three specific areas that I aim to cover in the course of this debate: accessibility, eligibility and funeral payments. On accessibility, I want be constructive and positive in sharing with my hon. Friend the Minister information about a pilot programme that was introduced by North Lanarkshire council. The initiative was designed to help people access social fund funeral expenses. The partnership between the Department for Work and Pensions and the council resulted in benefit packs being made available in registration officesa perfectly reasonable proposition, given that when a family is bereaved, one of the first places it has to visit is the local registry office in order to register the death.
	Customer feedback was greatly encouraging, as one woman was quoted as saying:
	Absolutely fantastic service, this partnership working helped to ease the transition of being widowed.
	Another woman said that
	it was nice to know people cared.
	If constituents on low incomes need to claim funeral benefit, we need to ensure that the service is easily accessible. The service provided by North Lanarkshire council ought to be seen as best practice when it comes to communication, but even when it is known that such provision exists, making a successful claim can be difficult for those who are eligible. A local funeral director told me that
	The biggest problem is when the relatives actually think they are entitled to a payment but don't qualify. It then turns out they are responsible for payment of the total funeral account. In these situations the demeanour of families can be aggressive towards Funeral services staff.
	Establishing an accurate record of the position in regard to eligibility, nationally and locally, has not been without difficulty. When preparing for the debate, I wrote to my local DWP office on 27 May requesting detailed information about what has happened in my constituency. I wanted to know how many funeral claims had been submitted, how many had been successful, how many had been partially successful and how many had been rejected. Due to a reorganisation of resources in the DWP, I have not yet received a definitive reply to all my questions, but, to its credit, the Department has furnished me with details of the funeral payments for Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire district, which covers my constituency. According to those figures, the number of claims received in 2005-06 was 1,790, the number of initial awards was 1,150, the number of partial initial awards was 1,130, and the number of initial refusals was 460. In summary, the refusal rate was a considerable 25 per cent.
	However, I wish to record my appreciation to the funeral directors in my constituency whom I consulted. I wanted to learn of their experiences in dealing with members of the public who had made applications for social fund funeral expenses. I was impressed by the professional responses that I received from Co-operative Funeralcare. Donald McLaren, a member of the National Association of Funeral Directors, Joseph Potts and Mr Flannigan, who represents Lanarkshire and is incredibly well informed on the subject, could not have been more helpful. Funeral directors are very important: they have a wealth of knowledge as well as experience. Although I consulted them about the generality of what happens, I am certain that they have much more to offer by way of detail, which could make the process a little less painful for bereaved relatives.
	Let me give just one example of what is happening to some bereaved families. According to Rights Advice Scotland, some funeral undertakersnot those whom I have mentioneddemand a down payment that can range from 440 to 675 before they will take a deceased person's remains into their care. Despite my references to my constituency and to Scottish organisations representing low-income families, my hon. Friend the Minister can be assured that I have no intention of being parochial, and I do not wish to pretend that problems associated with funeral payments are peculiar or exclusive to my constituency. The complexity of funeral payments, from accessibility to eligibility, spreads throughout Great Britain.
	Let me make one more point before I turn to the main theme of the actual level of funeral payments. If I can be entirely open, people are not comfortable about discussing matters relating to death. I fully understand their reluctance to do so, as nothing is more emotive than bereavement. Making funeral arrangements is not a simple task: it is complex, but, more importantly, it is costly, and ever increasingly so, and it is that aspect that was the catalyst for this debate.
	External research shows that it costs an average of almost 6,000 to die in Britain, after the cost of a funeral rose by 10 per cent. during the past year. The average cost of a funeral is now 2,390, with cremations, which account for 72 per cent. of funerals, costing about 2,160 and burials costing 2,620. The funeral is only the beginning of the costs families face when they lose someone, however, with about 229 typically spent on flowers, 98 spent on a death notice in a newspaper, and a further 149 paid for a funeral notice. On top of this, people also spend an average of 341 on catering, 612 on a memorial such as a headstone and 2,107 on the administration of an estate, bringing the total cost to 5,923.
	The cost of funerals looks set to continue to rise, with charges estimated to increase by a further 38 per cent. between now and 2012 to average 3,299. Unsurprisingly, the cost of dying is highest in London, where it averages 8,020. A consultant who studied the industry said:
	Funeral prices alone have risen faster than inflation.
	I cannot find a funeral director or a constituent who will confirm that the current funeral payment made via the social fund is sufficient. The Social Security Committee in 2001 cited evidence from funeral directors who said that
	they find it very difficult to offer dignified funerals to claimants at this level of the Funeral Payment.
	The social fund is the main political concern within the funeral industry. Funeral directors believe that it is unfair to include their fees in a price cap that is frozen for uncertain periods of time with no formula in existence to increase the cap or reflect the increase in inflation. Moreover, the 700 price cap, which has not increased since April 2003, does not take into account the cost of a simple funeral. There is uncertainty over what Other Funeral Expenses includes, and the industry, together with the Churches Funeral Group, believes it is wrong for the minister's fee to be included in the 700 price cap. Allow me to cite the reasons for the funeral industry's concerns: the retail price index has increased by 16.4 per cent. since April 2003, and the average cost of the NAFD simple funeral in March 2007 was 1,050.70.
	There are a number of potential solutions that the Government could introduce to resolve the current situation, and I shall cite some examples. They could immediately increase the 700 price cap in order to reflect the cost of a simple funeral. They could index link the price cap to ensure fairness. They could provide clarity to the funeral industry, Department for Work and Pensions staff and the bereaved as to what is included in the price cap.
	I respectfully urge the Minster to conduct a review of the present rate of funeral payments awarded through the social fund, and then to draw a comparison with the average funeral costs. It would be extremely beneficial to consult local authorities, and particularly the NAFD. Only by engaging in such a meaningful process are we likely to ascertain the true scale of difference and then, and only then, can we begin to bridge the gap in the evident shortfall.
	Before I conclude, it would be remiss of me not to pay a justifiable and warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), who is the chair of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement. His experienced and skilful leadership of the group is much admired on both sides of the House, particularly for his decorum and vision. Let me also mention Mr. Alan Slater, chief executive officer of the National Association of Funeral Directors, who is to be commended for his outstanding role in representing the valuable contribution of funeral directors throughout Britain.
	This Government have an absolutely first-class record of helping people out of poverty, examples of which I will not weary the House by giving at this time of the evening, important though they are. The Government also have ambitious plans to effectively address decades of inequalities, and those plans will result in a more equal and fairer society. In that spirit, I urge them to end the shameful feelings suffered by relatives who may have had the most unfortunate experience of having a member of their own familya loved onewho was too poor to die.

James Plaskitt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate on an important, butas he rightly saysnot always easy subject. I endorse what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and Mr. Slater, both of whom I meet reasonably regularly to discuss the issues raised in this debate.
	I am aware that my right hon. Friend wrote to the Jobcentre Plus office in Springburn and that there was some delay in providing him with the information that he requested. I am sorry that it took some time to get back to him, but I am pleased that he has now had some information.
	I hear the concerns that my right hon. Friend expresses, but I am sure that he will be aware that those claiming a funeral payment in his constituency do at least as well from the scheme as those claiming in other parts of the country, and sometimes actually do better. We do not have statistics at constituency level, but only at Jobcentre Plus budget area level. His constituency is covered by the Jobcentre Plus delivery centre in Springburn. In 2007-08, 5,980 claims were received in that delivery centre, of which 3,870 received an initial award. That compares with 65,000 claims nationally, which resulted in 35,250 awards.
	The success rate for applications in Springburn is 64.7 per cent., which is higher than the overall national rate of 54.2 per cent. Of the 3,870 initial awards, 97 per cent. were partial awards, which is a little above the national average. The initial refusal rate for claims made to the centre in Springburn was lower, at 35 per cent., than the national figure of 42 per cent. For Springburn, the percentage of all awards as a percentage of applications processed was nearly 69 per cent., compared with 61 per cent. nationally. The total expenditure for Springburn last year was 4.65 million, out of a national gross figure of 45.9 million. For the geographical area covered by Springburn, the average award was 1,133, a fraction less than the national average of 1,162.
	On my right hon. Friend's final question about the amounts of money paid out in respect of social fund funeral payments in each of the past three years, we do not have complete figures because of office mergers, as he has said. During 2005-06, when his constituency was covered by the Lanarkshire and east Dunbartonshire Jobcentre Plus district, the figure paid was 1.24 million. We have only partial figures for the next year from April to December, when the figure was 880,000. Last year, expenditure was 4.65 million.
	As I have dealt with the figures that my right hon. Friend sought, let me now turn to the operation of the funeral payments scheme as a whole. Last year, 40,000 social fund funeral payments were made at a gross cost of 46 million. I say gross cost because there was some recovery from the estates in many instances. In that way, the funeral payment scheme has continued to provide towards the cost of a simple, respectful, low-cost funeralthat is, to provide for the necessary costs of burial or cremation in full plus a significant contribution towards the fee levied by a funeral director. That fee, as he knows, is currently 700.
	Those payments are made to recipients, and the partners of recipients, of income-related benefits and tax credits, thus ensuring that the payment is as widely accessible as possible for people with lower incomes. It is worth looking at the list of qualifying benefits, because for funeral payments it is a long one: income support; income-based jobseeker's allowance; pension credit; child tax credit; working tax credit; housing benefit; and council tax benefit.
	It will perhaps come as no surprise to the House that approximately 50 per cent. of funeral expenditure goes to pensioners. Furthermore, last year 55 per cent. of initial awards were paid to the partner of the deceased person. I am confident that the funeral payment scheme provides those who have lost a loved one in circumstances where no provision had been made to cover funeral expenses with a means of meeting what they see to be their obligation.
	Although funeral payments do not operate in a cash-limited budget, resources are finite. Although the scheme provides for the full necessary cost of burial or cremation and a significant contribution towards funeral costs for those who need that help the most, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that we also have a responsibility to keep public expenditure under control in this area. For that reason, the qualifying criteria are stringent to ensure that payment is made only when it is reasonable for the applicant to have taken responsibility for the cost of the funeral. It is interesting to note that even as far back as 60 years ago, regulations to limit who could receive payment, in what circumstances and what the payment should provide for were considered necessary. Those concerns have been carried forward in the current scheme.
	The qualification criteria for who might qualify were tightened several times in the 1990s in an attempt to tackle the issue of people taking responsibility for a funeral and claiming when other members of the family were better placed to do so. Primarily, those changes were a reaction to a steady year-on-year increase in expenditure which had reached nearly 63 million by 1994-95. As a result, the number of funeral payment awards dropped and expenditure dropped back to about 42 million.
	Let me return to the current scheme. The provisions are encapsulated in the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 2005 and, as my right hon. Friend will know, established conditions must be met. The scheme allows for the full necessary cost of burial or cremation plus 700 for other funeral expenses. In addition, allowances can be made where appropriate for additional necessary transportation costs and the necessary costs of a return journey for the responsible person, either for the purpose of making arrangements or for attendance at the funeral.
	I am of course aware, from the meetings I have had with the all-party group and from a large amount of ministerial correspondence, of concerns that the amount allowed for funeral directors' fees does not meet the full cost. However, as I have already pointed out, the scheme does provide for the full necessary cost of burial or cremation, despite the wide range in those costs, particularly for burials, in different parts of the country. The costs vary widely, and cremations generally cost less than burials. Burial costs can range from 774 to as much as 2,750. For cremation, the range is smallerbetween 311 and 530. The average amount included in a funeral payment last year for burial costs was 852, and 495 for cremation costs. The average funeral payment last year was 1,162. That reflects the position after deductions have been made to take into account any moneys held by the deceased or insurance on the life of the deceased that is then available to the responsible person. However, the average payment differs significantly around the country. Last year, the average payment in south-east Wales was 952, while in Londonto which my right hon. Friend referredthe figure was 1,550.
	The cost of the components of a simple funeral, excluding burial or cremation, also vary significantly for different parts of the country. My officials recently looked at the costs across a number of different geographical areas. In some of those areas, including north Lanarkshire, a simple funeral could be obtained for around 1,000, while the lowest cost of 798 was to be found in Newport, Wales. On the other hand, the most expensive simple funeral, at 1,600, was in Edinburgh. I have to say that it is not entirely clear to me why the costs of a simple, dignified funeral should vary so much from one funeral director to another.
	From those figures, one can see that the total cost of a simple funeral including a burial in Edinburgh would be in the region of 3,300. At the other end of the spectrum, in Cardiff the cost would be 1,572half the Edinburgh figure. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the amount available as a funeral payment still represents a significant contribution to the cost of a funeral.
	Funeral directors must take some responsibility for ensuring that they can take account of a customer's circumstances before taking a contract to provide a funeral whose cost is clearly beyond the means of that customer, even if a social fund funeral payment is to be made.
	As I said earlier, I have regular meetings with the all-party parliamentary group, and I also receive correspondence from the industry trade associations. I value the feedback that comes to me from these quarters. I am pleased to say that we recently introduced the facility for funeral payments to be made directly into the bank account of funeral directors. The industry had been keen for some time to have that.
	I accept there are big regional variations in add-on costs and that currently there is considerable complexity in the scheme that makes it difficult for those claiming a funeral payment, or their funeral director, to work out what they might be entitled to, or indeed even generally navigate the system. I am keen to try to address those concerns. I have asked my officials to consider over the summer how we might better target the help available.
	Although the social fund funeral payment scheme has its detractorsmy right hon. Friend listed some continuing issues with itI believe that it plays an important role in social security safety net provision. It is right that we exercise control on expenditure in this area, but it is also right that we continue to provide, for most customers, a funeral payment that meets the full costs of burial or cremation and goes a significant way to meeting funeral directors' costs. As I have said, I accept that there are some weaknesses in the scheme as it currently operates. My right hon. Friend alluded to them, and I am examining ways of addressing them. I hope to be in a position to say more about that in the not-too-distant future.
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty  two  minutes to Eight o'clock.